This is an insightful interview.
The second would be that America is still a profoundly religious nation. There are reports that high-level Democratic leadership was not interested in reaching out to white Catholics. And they sure didn’t have a lot of interest in white evangelicals. That’s a huge portion of the electorate to throw out. So if the civic motivation doesn’t get you, let me make the practical argument: It doesn’t help you win elections if you’re openly disdainful toward the driving force in many Americans’ lives.
The Democratic Party is effectively broken up into three even thirds right now: religiously unaffiliated people, white Christians who are cultural Christians, and then people of color who are religious.
Democrats teng to unite around their climate change religion, delicate snowflake safe space religion, and anything that worships big government.
And you called me factually challenged.
FYI: Climate change and snowflakes don’t have much in common. Think about it rather than just spout off knee-jerk talking points.
You have never heard the “It’s cold outside because it’s warming” commandment?
That’s why liberals rebranded thei religion “climate change” vs. “global warming”, so they can be right whether it is hot or cold outside.
It’s about worship of big government in the end.
One would need to throw out the 10th Amendment and 1st Amendment to install “climate change” as the established government religion.
Nope, because no such thing exists except in your incurious mind.
You keep confusing religion, which has no basis in fact, with science, that does.
Keep putting your head in the sand.
It’s entertaining that you are unwilling to admit the religion of man made climate change pretending to be science.
I can at least admit the religion I practice.
There is no “religion of man made (I see you have changed your claim a bit) climate change”. Get over it. You are making things up again.
Now have the last word.
Again, right on spectrum.
It is clearly a challenge for you to stay on topic. Since you brought it up…
Why does the GOP worship at the Church of Carbon and deny climate science?… Loads of campaign cash! And a way to force an ideological Fabian strategy on the Democratic Party.
Why do you, Mr. Scheunemann, follow like a stray puppy and also deny climate science?… Greed!… A financial portfolio that contains oil, gas and coal stock.
GOP members of Congress who have been the most ardent deniers are those who have been rewarded with committee positions overseeing climate policy. For example, Chair of the House Science Committee,Lamar Smith (R), received $700,000 from the oil and gas industry. The fossil fuel industry knows it has lost the war of public opinion and has now put a stranglehold on the GOP. The fear of the cash flow to GOP campaigns being cut off has those in the House and Senate willing to deny their own mothers in efforts to preserve their reigns of power.
The position of denial is unsustainable.
Even the likes of Rex Tillerson and Charles Koch have acknowledged climate change and although it may take years, eventually, even those as willfully ignorant as you, Mr.Scheunemann, will succumb to scientific facts and put the best interests of humanity and Gods green earth above power and profit.
You lecture about staying on topic after that post?
I embrace carbon because it is the 2nd most common element of our bodies and we exhale carbon dioxide.
The liberal battle to regulate what we exhale as pollution is inhrently dangerous and stupid. Once we do that, all things are fair game in population control, including several past Marxist tactics Stalin, Chairman Mao, Castro, and Mugabe have enjoyed using in name of “population control”.
So, this is why I deny the climate change religuon…for the sake of humanity!!!!
A government that considers its population polution, as a religious conviction, is more dangerous than the wildest, unsubstantiated, climate change prediction coming true.
Since nearly all the climate change doom predictions have failed to date, we only have to battle the climate change religion and keep it from being established as religion in government.
For the sake of humanity.
You write the most ridiculous nonsense. There is no way for me to say this politely without holding something back… You are a willfully ignorant fool! Before, once again, proving you full of beans let me say that at this point your opinion means nothing and as you can tell by the B&S following nobody else cares.
Have you ever asked yourself why “we exhale carbon dioxide”?… Because its poison. Even oxygen, the 1st most common element of our bodies and we inhale it, can be poison in concentrated amounts. Would you recommend dumping excessive amounts of phosphorus, sulfur or chlorine into the atmosphere? They are all present in the human body.
Although I know you will ignore it i will provide a link proving carbon dioxide is poisonous to humans. https://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf
As for the rest of your ranting its easy to ignore such distractions considering the source.
Kevin reminds me of the cargo cultists in the South Pacific…being unable to have any understanding of even basic science & technology, he simply dismisses it all as magic & religion.
Mr. Scheunemann not only has a problem understanding basic science and technology but he has no common sense and is completely out of touch with reality. I often why/how the electorate of Kewaskum voted for this guy. Clearly, they don’t follow B&S.
It will probably kill you to know, nomination period elapsed and hour ago and I am running unopposed this spring.
It doesn’t nor will it kill me to know how pathetic things have become in Kewaskum. It is however sad to see someone with such a closed mind leading such a wonderful community of people. Lets remember how small a percentage of people actually turn out to vote in your community. Clearly not an overwhelming majority of support and how lucky for you. Not really a vote of confidence more like nobody else wants the job.
Back on “your” topic… Climate change. Or are you unwilling/incapable of having an honest, educated (not in your case) debate.
Do you want to debate the many failed doomsday predictions of climate change that were once considered “science” vs fortune telling…or
Are you looking to debate the religion of climate change as a passionate disciple confronting my climate change heresy?
If the latter, I oppose state establishment of religion and advocate to protect my constituents from you.
“Are you looking to debate the religion of climate change”.
It is difficult to debate something that does not exist, in this case the religion of climate change. Kevin would never want to pursue the science aspects of the issue as he has no understanding of the subject and has no desire to learn.
The last paragraph is once again just nonsense.
Let’s test that.
Science? or religion?
1.) “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” says Gore. He said it in 2007 and 2008.
ABC Predicted NYC Would be Under Water from Climate Change by 2015. Then went so far as to say the “science is settled” in it’s Earth 2100 report.
3.) religion with crazy liberal media zealots and disciples proclaiming their false climate change gospel.
The correlation may be without merit. Does religion inform the political views of white Catholics and white evangelicals, or has their political view been shaped by politicians? Churches encourage conformity and belief and adherence to authority.
Keven…just curious: Do you consider “creationism” to be a scientific fact or a religious beleif? How about the theory of gravity…since it is still only a “theory” is it considered science or religion in your eyes? Or magnets: Do you consider it a religious experience when two pieces of metal are drawn to each other or are you able to explain the science of how that happens?
Not being snarky or mean…Just trying to get a better understanding of who you are and where you’re coming from. Are there other subjects where the majority of people consider it “science” yet you label it “religion”…or is that only limited to this very niche area of study?
Kevin, google “Arctic Sea Ice and Al Gore’s Prediction 2013 Truthout” and tell me about cherry-picking.
Great faux poster. Too bad for you that it doesn’t prove your point.
Go to the NSIDC web page and look up the Arctic, Greenland or Antarctic ice melt records. It only takes seconds, even I can do it.
Oh, but it is scientific data. That has always stymied you in the past….
I am interested in debating the facts. You know, those things that elude you in every response. Your bait and switch tactics are aimed to frustrate. Never have they proven a point. What they have proven is your foolish willful ignorance. Now, what proof do you have that climate change or if you would like global warming is a hoax.
Pushed a touchy button I see.
Curious it’s about me instead of the NASA science on Antartic Ice sheet. Or the “science” of how NYC was under water last year.
It seems I stand convicted of the worst heresy in climate change religion….paying attention to science that shows climate change is just a passionate religion.
You haven’t been paying attention at all. Your unwillingness to present facts supporting your position is testament to an unsustainable argument. It appears the only delicate snowflake hiding behind religion is you. Be a man and have the debate.
” science that shows climate change is just a passionate religion”.
Proof? Use facts.
Nholland and Nord,
NYC is not underwater in 2015.
Antartic ice sheet is bigger than ever according to NASA in 2015.
Climate change religion said, while claiming “science is settled”;
1.) NYC will be under water in 2015.
2.) Antartic will suffer record ice sheet loss by now.
How can that be? If science is “settled” why are New Yorkers not swimming in the streets? Why are Antartic penquins enjoying more ice?
Which “science” does your religion embrace today?
Has Al Gore been excommunicated for his grossly erroneous predictions?
The debate is settled.
Climate change science alarmism is just plain wrong.
Those that still subscribe to it, are clinging to a religious faith that is trying to have an established government religion.
What is proven is that you had a chance to read a scientific article and chose not to, and then couldn’t even get the cherry-picked quote right.
“Antartic ice sheet is bigger than ever according to NASA in 2015”. This quote is part of a sentence in a larger piece about the decline in the rate of growth of the ice sheet. If you made even an attempt to read the entire article rather than pick up a snippet from the deniers you might have a better understanding. Read the whole NASA piece.
That still means ice sheet is bigger than ever and yoir high priest was wrong!
You are such a zealot you can’t interpret the data correctly.
You are hopeless….
…to be a disciple in your false climate change religion, proved wrong over and over again…
Guilty as charged!
You will have to evangelize someone else.
I find it hilarious you did not even attempt to counter the Reason article which completely destroys the testimony “hero” of this climate change religion from the 1986 Congressional hearing.
Neither of you can counter even the most notorious climate change doomsday “science” predictions now proven false.
Even stupid people stop spending money on fortune tellers after the fortune teller’s predictions fail.
NASA, NOAA, Nat Geo, NSIDC all refute your interpretation. Do some research rather than be thought a fool.
Did my research.
Al Gore was wrong about ice sheet. He said “science was settled”, yet his prediction was wrong.
1986 Congressional testimony was wrong. James Hansen said “science was settled” many times, yet his predictions were wrong.
ABC News said NYC will be underwater due to global warming (along with several other ridiculous predictions) by 2015 and said “science was settled”.
How can “science” be so wrong, all the time? Only blind faith accepts this nonsense as “science”.
Cherry picking data from 30+ years ago is not doing your research. Look at data from 2016.
I forgot, you still believe 2000 second-hand accounts, so 30 years seems like yesterday.
So the science is not settled?
If it is settled, why do you care I point out the many, many erroneous climate change “scientific” predictions (fortune telling) of the past?
Why is 2016 climate change”data”, and alarmist fortune telling, any better?
In 2026 or 2036, will I make fun of the 2016 data/ “science” in the exact same way? and what stops you from saying the same thing? (the ‘climate change faith will someday find the facts and predictions’… that fit your ill-conceived cult?)
Your faith seems to shift…that should not happened if it is ironclad “settled science”.
I laugh that you do not attempt to defend the past climate change “science”.
Of course you are right, always and forever right, without doubt or worry, everything is as you say it is. The weight on your shoulders as the only person on earth that knows anything about anything must be tremendous.
Your turn, I’m done on this thread.
You demanded the facts.
I gave you a ton of facts on failed climate change “science” predictions and showed how foolish this religion is.
Now you are upset the facts you demanded were like nuclear bomb to your climate change faith?
Why do you demand facts when you cannot handle them?